Summerflower wrote:
The comparison of deer to humans is almost borderline ignorant.
You should read my posts more carefully. I did not compare deer to humans . You asked me how I would define the health of a herd and I said that I would determine the health of the herd using the same method that is used in the medical profession to determine the health of a human population. That is to consider the maladies found in the individuals. Of course deer and humans are different and of course with a different set of potential maladies. That should have been obvious to you. Here was my definition:
If the individuals within the population display a normal or low incidence of maladies i.e. disease, genetic disorders, nutritional deficiency and also display other physical characteristics within the normal range for their age e.g. weight I would consider the herd healthy.
You see, the same way we determine the health of any population. This would be a good criteria for Chipmucks too wouldn't you think? To say I was comparing humans to deer is "borderline ignorant". Now please don't say I'm comparing humans to Chipmunks.
Should a herd be considered healthy is if is growing and not decreasing in numbers?
Rising or falling numbers though they may be cause to look closer at the reasons why are not by themselves reasons to assume "state of health". Surely you can see that numbers could rise with disease prevalent and numbers could fall in a healthy population. Over hunting can certainly lower numbers but the deer being shot may be healthy as can be.
Should we look at an entire state and get an average of populations or should we look at a more local level to determine what is acceptable? Does population size = health. Absolutely not!
Where did you get the idea that I implied that population size has anything to do with it. Of course you can asses the health of any size population but you would still be using the same criteria I described.
You are correct that a herd of 2.5y/o can be unhealthy and you are just as correct that a 1.5 y/o herd can be healthier. We could throw all kinds of occurrances that will mess with either situation. ...more likely than not the 2.5y/o age class is healthier on the whole.
So unless you examine the health of the herd you just don't know. When you say more likely you are clearly speculating.
What would be an acceptable % of spontaneous abortions that a doe population could have?
Do you know that, that level is directly proportional to multiple ruts?
Nutrition does play a key role here but so do estrus cycles.
As an engineer I learned along time ago that statistical correlation is not a demonstration of cause and effect.
You say that a prolonged rut has nothing to do with the health of the herd?
You seem to like to put words in my mouth. All I said regarding this was "You can't just say the herd is having X number of ruts therefore the herd is not healthy." Its possible that there is a link here but if you don't have a scientific study that proves it then its just speculation. It's extremely difficult to do a study and draw conclusions on something like this because there are so many variables that can't be controlled.
Look all this discussion is a lot of fun and I respect what you have to say but I think our disagreement comes down to this... I want to define the health of a herd through the incidence of maladies displayed. I don't think you disagree with my definition but you seem to want to add some other things that I don't. Where I think you are going wrong is to point to things like age and number of ruts that may or may not effect herd health and then "assume" that it does.
BTW, I like the idea of getting together. Maybe dinner and some great conversation. We don't all agree on everything but that's o.k. We all have the common bond of loving the sport.